Case at a Glance
The Supreme Court has dismissed the State of Himachal Pradesh’s appeal against the acquittal of a man convicted by the trial court for the murder of his wife in 2006. Agreeing with the High Court, it held that none of the circumstances was proved by convincing evidence and that they did not form a complete chain pointing only to the accused.
The accused and his wife worked as labourers on a school building construction. On 27 June 2006 he reported at Police Station Chirgaon that his wife had gone missing and that he suspected she had left with a co-labourer. The prosecution alleged instead that he took her to the jungle and killed her with a knife.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla convicted him under Section 302 IPC on 21 May 2008 and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs 20,000. A Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed his appeal on 22 April 2014 and acquitted him, and the State appealed.
The Key Question Before the Court
When can an appellate court reverse an acquittal in a circumstantial murder case?
Every Circumstance Fell Away
The High Court had found that last seen together was not proved because two co-labourers were not examined and the timing did not match the missing report; that a witness who saw a person under a shawl did not identify the accused; that soil stains on clothes were explained by his presence with police at the spot; that the extra-judicial confession was made at police instance while he was in custody before formal arrest and was inadmissible; that the knife was not connected to the crime by the FSL report; and that motive was not proved.
The Supreme Court said it was “in complete agreement” with these reasons. Relying on Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, it reiterated that where two views are possible in an appeal against acquittal, the view favouring the accused should be preferred, and interference is warranted only for patent perversity.
What the Court Actually Held
- The prosecution “has fallen woefully short of bringing home the guilt of the respondent.”
- The High Court’s judgment did not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference.
- The State’s appeal was dismissed.
- The acquittal stands.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It reaffirms the double presumption of innocence after acquittal.
- It shows that an extra-judicial confession made at police instance in custody does not help the prosecution.
- It confirms that unexamined witnesses can leave the last-seen theory unproved.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Defence Counsel
- Rely on Chandrappa where the acquittal is a plausible view.
- Challenge confessions made while the accused was effectively in police custody.
For the State
- Examine available last-seen witnesses.
- Secure forensic linkage of the weapon before relying on recovery.
Key Takeaways
- Appellate courts interfere with acquittals only for patent perversity.
- Unproved circumstances cannot form a chain.
- Custodial extra-judicial confessions are suspect.
- Motive was not proved.
Frequently Asked Questions
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in 2014, reversing the trial court’s conviction.
It was made at police instance while the accused was in police custody before formal arrest.
Where two views are possible, the one favouring the accused is preferred.
Conclusion
Twenty years after the incident, the Supreme Court has left the acquittal undisturbed because the evidence did not exclude every other hypothesis.
Practical takeaway: An appeal against acquittal must show perversity, not merely that another view was possible.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com
Visit CourtKutchehry →